AES 2.31 released

[Sizel 9]

Thanks for latest update. I was hoping we would have Leeds int (EGNM) included in this one. Maybe next time eh? : )

[gullman 4]

Thanks for new version I very hope, next time will be add international airport Bratislava LZIB by Taxi2gate. I hope for it King regards from Slovakia

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

No TXKF or TTCP

FSDT Vancouver was released a lot earlier than some airports included in 2.31

I was hoping we would have Leeds int (EGNM)

next time will be add international airport Bratislava LZIB

Guys,

We have a request thread for requests.

In case you don't know it yet, it is here: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/50084-aes-airportrequest-post-only-here/page-14

There please check if your airport was requested before

> if yes - vote it up (the green arrow)

> if not - do request it in a proper form

That above linked thread was made and is thoroughly maintained not to have a chaos of repeated requests in other threads. Thank you!

[USAIRBRO 3]

With all due respect Sir Rafal Haczek, We Request, Request and Request and it falls on deaf ears. We have asked and have yet to receive what the consumer wants. How can we make sure that TXKF, TTCP, FSDT Vancouver, (EGNM) and LZIB are in the next AES release?

[Blueflight 23]

Hey ho Oliver,

request:

Is there any chance to get a more realistic pushback procedure in the way that the wheels are moving, the nose wheel will react to the pushback vehicle and the ancle it is pusing it - lets say the way like GSX is doing it.

It seem a little bit static movement at the moment.

Thanks for your answer!

Regards,

Sascha

[Er!k 572]

Oliver, according to the Aerosoft documentation only FSX is supported at this time?? Is this correct or did you also do the FS9 version (as I can see in the config file)?

Ok, that is a solution for the moment, as it is not used in the old version. I will clear up this issue with the developer.

[OPabst 2091]

Oliver, according to the Aerosoft documentation only FSX is supported at this time?? Is this correct or did you also do the FS9 version (as I can see in the config file)?

Error in the list, both FS versions are supported, will change it tomorrow. I got the FSX version first, later I was informed, that a FS9 version was relased, forgot to change that in the list. Relasenote is correct.

EDIT: Airportlist is updated now!

[flywap 48]

Hi Oliver,

Thanks for this latest version, especially for including uk2000 Luton EGGW.

Please could you adjust a couple of things at uk2000 EGGW:

Stands 46, 47, 48 & 60 have busses taking passengers to the aircraft in real life, please could you change it so aes send busses to these stands?

Stands 61 & 60 have safedock boards (both in real wold and in uk2000 scenery), please could you animate these and remove the marshallers?

Many Thanks

[OPabst 2091]

Thanks for this latest version, especially for including uk2000 Luton EGGW.

Please could you adjust a couple of things at uk2000 EGGW:

Stands 46, 47, 48 & 60 have busses taking passengers to the aircraft in real life, please could you change it so aes send busses to these stands?

Stands 61 & 60 have safedock boards (both in real wold and in uk2000 scenery), please could you animate these and remove the marshallers?

Thanks for the info, Issue fix in the Update here

[Moisex 3]

Thank you very much for this AES version and very important airports included. But, where is Mega Airport Rome? Why now is not this airport in this new version, sir? Can you help me, please?

Thanks!

Moises. Spain

[OPabst 2091]

Thank you very much for this AES version and very important airports included. But, where is Mega Airport Rome? Why now is not this airport in this new version, sir? Can you help me, please?

Thanks!

Moises. Spain

Aslong as the Rom scenery is not released for both FS verions, i don't start with it. And the jetways needs to be change before, otherwise AES is not possible. The developer knows that.

[flywap 48]

Hi Oliver,

Thanks for this latest version, especially for including uk2000 Luton EGGW.

Please could you adjust a couple of things at uk2000 EGGW:

Stands 46, 47, 48 & 60 have busses taking passengers to the aircraft in real life, please could you change it so aes send busses to these stands?

Stands 61 & 60 have safedock boards (both in real wold and in uk2000 scenery), please could you animate these and remove the marshallers?

Many Thanks

Thanks for the info, Issue fix in the Update here

Hi Oliver,

Thanks very much for making those changes.

May I ask if you are planning on having uk2000 Doncaster & Leeds included in the next aes version? as Doncaster was released back in October

Thanks again

[OPabst 2091]

May I ask if you are planning on having uk2000 Doncaster & Leeds included in the next aes version? as Doncaster was released back in October

Thanks again

Gary normaly infos me about releases, maybe i missed that, will check it for next version.

[Christiaan 3]

I posted the photo's about the KMIA J17 gate were jetway1 and 2 went to the same door.

Installed the patch which solved the problem, however I have a small question about the patch files.

I posted all the files including the "FSX" in both FS9 & FSX, as I could not find any information I presume this was correct.

Have not noted as yet if the FSX files will create an issue in FS9 and vice versa.

Bought AES from day one and it gets better with every new version, thanks for all the effort put into this project.

[jordanal 21]

Oliver, can you confirm FSDT KJFK v2.1 is still in consideration for a future version of AES as requested here?

Thanks,

AL

[Flukey 40]

Hey Oliver, Thanks again for all your effort in bringing my FS9 sim to life, Love AES and what it does for my flight experience, though the wife doesn't with all the credits I have bought on the credit card LOL

I can not wait until flytampa release Sydney International, then you add your magic to bring my home airport to life ....

Guys,

We have a request thread for requests.

In case you don't know it yet, it is here: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/50084-aes-airportrequest-post-only-here/page-14

There please check if your airport was requested before

> if yes - vote it up (the green arrow)

> if not - do request it in a proper form

That above linked thread was made and is thoroughly maintained not to have a chaos of repeated requests in other threads. Thank you!

With regards to the above and a lot of unanswered requests from Airports posted in 2012. Are these still being checked upon (with regards to likes/dislikes) and are still possibilities for future releases?

Referring more to requests for Airports from designers such as Tropicalsim and LatinVFR posted back in 2012, who have Caribbean airports available with no aerobridges which (Im just guessing) would be easier to add AES due to no exclude files being required?

Regards

Flukey

[g3o 0]

Hi,

Files for Norilsk X?

[MAPM 0]

como desinstalar esteprograma no fsx?

Pois deu problema

grato

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

como desinstalar esteprograma no fsx?

Please write in English or post here: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/forum/585-utilidades/

[Swisspilot 235]

With all due respect Sir Rafal Haczek, We Request, Request and Request and it falls on deaf ears. We have asked and have yet to receive what the consumer wants. How can we make sure that TXKF, TTCP, FSDT Vancouver, (EGNM) and LZIB are in the next AES release?

I totaly agree. There are several airports requested last year and we do not know if there get any attention anymore. Example: Army Project released last september a new Version of VTBS which was immediately requested and not supported until now, but the new VTBS released a few weeks ago by another publisher already is.

So I fear that the product I bought will not be supported although it was just an update to an already existing scenery.

Regards Patrick

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I totaly agree. There are several airports requested last year and we do not know if there get any attention anymore. Example: Army Project released last september a new Version of VTBS which was immediately requested and not supported until now, but the new VTBS released a few weeks ago by another publisher already is.

So I fear that the product I bought will not be supported although it was just an update to an already existing scenery.

Regards Patrick

Gents, we need the help of the developers and some are just not interested and others are technically not capable to provide us with the files. If the developers contact Oliver things are normally sorted out pretty fast. We do not surf all sites to see if there is a new scenery out and then contact the developers, if they want AES to work on their airport they will have to start the discussion.

[jordanal 21]

Gents, we need the help of the developers and some are just not interested and others are technically not capable to provide us with the files. If the developers contact Oliver things are normally sorted out pretty fast. We do not surf all sites to see if there is a new scenery out and then contact the developers, if they want AES to work on their airport they will have to start the discussion.

So how do I know, as the person who took the time to submit a request (in the proper request thread), what the status really is, regardless if it's the developer or Oliver? My request for the FSDT KJFK v2.1 upgrade, for example - was it even noted? Perhaps at least some reply indicators to the particular request-post, that the request has been noted, or in progress, or delayed (for what-ever reason). Or better yet, some kind of status table attached to the request-thread that we end-users can download and review, would be a big help. Obviously, Oliver already has some internal tracking document he uses to track all these airports, including works-in-progress. So why not let us users look up the status ourselves?

[alexvs 243]

So how do I know, as the person who took the time to submit a request (in the proper request thread), what the status really is, regardless if it's the developer or Oliver? My request for the FSDT KJFK v2.1 upgrade, for example - was it even noted? Perhaps at least some reply indicators to the particular request-post, that the request has been noted, or in progress, or delayed (for what-ever reason). Or better yet, some kind of status table attached to the request-thread that we end-users can download and review, would be a big help. Obviously, Oliver already has some internal tracking document he uses to track all these airports, including works-in-progress. So why not let us users look up the status ourselves?

Hi Jordanal,

I think this a question that's asked many times. I personally don't think it's a good idea to have such a list. It creates expectations. And Oliver has to keep up the list up to date, which can be very hard. With that list AES will also be depended of all projects it has to follow. Delays in the projects must be updated in the list. Oliver, I think, is busy enough to work on AES and has no time to be a bookkeeper and developer at the same time.

So, although I also think 2.31 has not much airports I expected, it's up to Oliver and Aerosoft to pick which airports will be updated with AES. And if we customers want more updates, more frequent, with serviced airports, it's up to Oliver and Aerosoft to either put more staff on the development of AES or we have to wait until the next update at a later date than we want to expect. I rather have good updates less frequent with more airports than more frequent updates with less airports at a lower quality.

I'm patient, and cross my fingers. I have all faith in the desicions and hard work of Oliver and Aerosoft. I will wait for the next AES update en let me be surprised which airports will be serviced. As long as it's FS9 for me personally.

[OPabst 2091]

Good words Jeroen,

as it seams to give nothing more to say for AES 2.31 and serveral posters are not interessted to respect the red highlighted sentense in my thread opening, we close this one now.